Via Fishbowl DC by way of the Drudge Report:
Brian Williams gives us hardhitting reportage on the Obama phenomamama:
WILLIAMS: I interviewed Lee Cowan, our reporter who covers Obama, while we were out yesterday and posted the interview on the web. Lee says it's hard to stay objective covering this guy. Courageous for Lee to say, to be honest. The e-mail flood started out we caught you guys, we never did trust you. That kind of thing. I think it is a very interesting dynamic. I saw middle-aged women just throw their arms around Barack Obama, kiss him hard on the cheek and say, you know, I'm with you, good luck. And i think he feels it, too.
Perhaps it is courageous to admit your man crush, but it would be professional for a journalist not to compound it by announcing that this candidate is so wonderful that we can barely hang on to our virtue.
+*(The title of this post is shamelessly ripped off from Mark Steyn.)
Somehow, I must have missed that part of Journalism--where losing one's virtue to a candidate is considered 'objective.'
Williams called his colleague "courageous"???
Actually, if you subscribe to the idea that perfect, neutral objectivity does not exist, then it follows that everyone has some bias. With that in mind, it is useful to hear biases disclaimed. Why? Because now one can read his positive remarks with greater skepticism, and any negative remarks he might make about Obama are given greater validity. As an academic, I am suprised that you seem to disagree. Given all of the accusations of "liberal media" I would think that this behavior would be better received by those making such accusations.
Well, I suppose it's one thing for a journalist to admit being moved by a politician -- it's quite another for you to parrot racist xenophobe Mark Steyn. In the article you link to, Steyn -- who has made his repulsive career reminding white Europeans how brown-skinned their neighbors and immigrants are -- drives the Muslim and madrassa lies about Obama, among other things. Sure, the mad screed is a year old, but it's never too early to spead the poison, eh, Rick? I suppose Obama can expect (much) more of this if he's the nominee, from Steyn and, unfortunately, from you.
"Warn" Europeans about the Muslims?
Why would anyone in their right mind do THAT?
After all, those Spaniards have been dead, dead, dead, for at least 1200 years or so...
No skin of MY nose, Mike.
fMike Plaisted, Rick wasn't parrotting anything. POLLY WANT A CRACKER???
Rick was pointing out the fawning by a reporter whose job is to be objective. The point is that, there is little objectivity in the media. And Rick illustrated a clear example.
Mike Plaisted, we are all oh-so-painfully aware that you leftoids aren't racists, but everyone else is. You "celebrate the richness of diversity", standard bearers, SEE OTHERS vis a vis their race, gender or sexual preference, and (in your own words) are "MOVED" by virtue of the differences that you claim are irrelevant. You "lovers of equality" don't respect those who are "different", you wonderful holier than thou phonies, pity, those you percieve as in need of your protection. In other words, you Mike Plaisted, are not color blind, you don't respect diversity, you PITY those who are different than you. You don't EXPECT those of different, skin tone, race, gender or nation of origin to be ABLE, INTELLIGENT, COMPETENT nor CAPABLE of making their own way in America. And your pandering to them is justified because, you are GOOD and WE are BAD.
2 reasons Mike Plaisted.
1) Everyone is racist, sexist, insensitive and prejudice. EXCEPT YOU.
2) You don't respect the "diversity" that you prattle about. You treat those who you portend to care about, as if they were not able to function without your pity and my taxes. They need you to protect them from US.
Way to go. Well said.
Chalk one up for Anon 2:02. Do a little soul searching Mike.
A good point and one that ocurred to me. But I don't think Cowan is revealing his bias. To the contrary, he's acting like he has none and that Obama is just so wonderful that he can barely stay his normal objective self. Your point would be better taken if he had said that he was inclined toward left-liberal politics and Obama is a fantastic standard-bearer for my point of view. (Something that I think happens to be true.) But, as it stands, he's endorsing this fatuous notion that Obama transcends political differences.
You have really got your partisan on, don't you?
Holy crap, Micky, I hope you didn't hurt yourself.
Hey, Rick, sorry, never mind. Just go on spreading lies about Obama via Steyn or whatever you like. I don't mean to butt in here and rain on your parade. Yeah, I'm the partisan one.
umm . . . Mike, are you avoiding the real issue by playing the race card?
And this raises another question -- if we follow the liberals' path and relegate all campaign commentary to the networks and newspapers, how much can we trust them to be objective?
Steyn's piece is a year old. Who knew what about that issue at that time is not something I am interested in reconstructing and the column is really more about the Obama's then and current argument that his complicated family tree is a qualification for the presidency.
As for Steyn's other writings, that's another subject. I know that you want to get all 1965 on us, but I suggest that you ponder the Netherlands before you get up on your high horse.
But put all that aside. When I read it a year ago, I thought the modified song lyric was clever and says something about the media reaction to Obama. But, in my world, taking someone else's stuff without attribution is a fairly serious offense so I felt obligated to say where I got it. I have that obligation no matter what Steyn said in the rest of his column and whether you don't like it.
Wow, Mike, that was special.
As to news coverage of Obama, that could go something like the coverage of the last MoonbeamWhatsHisName who launched a tire slashing attack from Democratic headquarters during the last presidential election.
Post a Comment